Far from it. The point is to isolate mining with the prototype devices to prevent network disruptions (in total hash rate, difficulty, and profitability). If it was discovered the any of the companies were profiting on their own product, it wouldn't make the community very happy, including their investors. It's a terrible business model. The same applies to the drug trade...don't use your own product  Well, they wouldn't profit as they'd be passing it on to their customers. It might also count as a bit of reassurance : "This device generated x bitcoins in y minutes". Not that I mind either way as I'm not going ASIC, it just seems a shame to waste energy (assuming all other things equal) |
|
|
|
If you do not sign, you cannot live there. It's quite topical. It's hardly voluntary when it is compulsory.
I have not been present for the birth of a child in the US. Do they make them sign before or after the umbilical is cut? |
|
|
|
|
Intent also plays into things. If you obtain a key and you don't know it was unlawfully obtained, that's different from if you knew that it was.
The issue also isn't ownership of the private key but what you do with it. Remember when credit cards were recorded by swiping with duplicate paper and there was no ccv code? Someone who you made a payment to "owned" all the information he needed to access your funds. It's only the misuse of it which breaks the law.
And wrt to the property argument, I own my gun. Is it therefore OK to start pointing it in arbitrary directions and pull the trigger? No? Is it not my own property to do with as I wish?
|
|
|
|
who hit rewind...
BFL, CablePair, Avalon have all publicly stated they will use testnet in a box.
That's just a waste of money. They should mine real BTC during the burn in but put them in a paper wallet they include in the box. |
|
|
|
Are you this stupid, or just retarded?
If you don't want to pay taxes, you can move out in international waters. Problem solved. If you choose to live in a country, you have to obey the laws there. No one will force you to live in your country, unless it is North Korea. (On the other hand, there are probably no taxes in North Korea because everything already is owned by the state, so you may be happy there.)
Are you this stupid, or just retarded? |
|
|
|
What makes you so sure that you're not the robber? You keep enjoying the fruits of society being and civil and organised. Would you rather have a "zombie apocalypse" where lone gunmen drive through devastated wastelands and shoot the 'bums'?
Perhaps he is. Perhaps he doesn't want to be. Government makes both victims and "criminals"* of us all. (*Legally not a crime cause the government says it's OK and all). |
|
|
|
Yes. Thieves don't steal a fair share of my income and use it to build roads for me to drive on, provide me with free healthcare, give me a free university education, etc. And they don't stand up for an election every four years and ask me to give them verdict on how they did and how I want them to proceed.
.
What proportion would they have to put towards that to make it OK? |
|
|
|
Services funded by theft are never going to be efficient,
True, but I was defending taxes, not theft. Correct. Robbery is closer. |
|
|
|
None of the other disastrous failures of their policies have. They'll just point to an economy that has been run into the ground by huge government and regulation and cry about the failures of the free market again. |
|
|
|
|
This is a bit like saying "motorcycles are great at acceleration and maneuvering through traffic, how can I use one for delivering fridges and washing machines?"
|
|
|
|
Not me. I don't want to control anyone else, that would break the non-aggression principle.
Of course, deep down inside, every one of us has our inner fascist: if we could do it without consequence, of course we would all love to mould the world in our countenance?
+1. What bought me to libertarianism is the internalization of the idea that I should treat others as I would hope to be treated myself. Of course, I know that I'm special and that everything I know is right (at least until I change my mind) and if I was grand leader of the world, things would be peachy for everyone forever but I wouldn't (and don't) feel that way about others who would aspire to that position so the fairest thing is if we all leave each other alone as much as possible to achieve success and happiness in our own ways. |
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of the simplest, most direct way to print. The "Copy to clipboard" only copies the text, not the QR code itself. The ZX barcode scanner allows you to generate a QR code from text which you can then share. The Brother printer driver installs itself as accessible from the share menu. I think we have a path.
I'm tempted to suggest that Bitcoin Spinner have a share option on the QR codes but that makes the security side of me want to freak out (accidently post your public key on facebook?). Possibly should be there for the public Bitcoin Address though.
|
|
|
|
|
Never mind. There is still no real API, just some programs that can send some files to printers. Perhaps it might be possible to have a small program that you run on a PC to do the printing? I understand that's probably outside the scope of this project though.
|
|
|
|
|
There are a couple of printing solutions for android out there at the moment. I haven't looked at all at how they operate but would it be possible to hook these in maybe?
|
|
|
|
So legally it is the case. At least by precedence in the jurisdiction of those courts. It's not clear from that snippet if they expanded trespass to include all personal items (cf pen example), whether it already applied to those items and they expanded it to include computers or if it only means computers and not other personal items or what. It originally meant all personal items. Yes, even your pen example. Technically, that's trespass to chattels. It's also petty theft of ink. It's not worth prosecuting, because of the miniscule amount of financial loss, but it is, technically, a crime, even though most people wouldn't mind. Unless, of course, the pen is owned by the company, and for use of employees, in which case it's perfectly within the proper use of that pen. In that case, I accept hacking as trespass to chattels. |
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattelsThe trespass to chattels tort punishes anyone who substantially interferes with the use of another's personal property, or chattels. Plaintiffs must show that the offender had intentional physical contact with the chattel and that the contact caused some substantial interference or damage. The courts that imported this common law doctrine into the digital world reasoned that electrical signals traveling across networks and through proprietary servers may constitute the contact necessary to support a trespass claim. Applying this common law action to computer networks, plaintiffs must first prove that they received some type of electronic communication (typically bulk e-mail or spam) that the defendant intentionally sent to interfere with the plaintiff's interest in his or her property and second that this communication caused a quantifiable harm to their tangible property, such as impaired functioning of the computer, network or server.
[eBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000)] So legally it is the case. At least by precedence in the jurisdiction of those courts. It's not clear from that snippet if they expanded trespass to include all personal items (cf pen example), whether it already applied to those items and they expanded it to include computers or if it only means computers and not other personal items or what. I think it's also important to bear in mind Lincoln's famous quote about dogs and legs. |
|
|
|
Just to say, I've lost interest in the private key aspect of this argument but I agree that the hacking of a computer is not the same as trespass. Though it does have some aspects in common, it is still a different thing.
It has in common that someone is using your stuff without you agreeing to it. It's that simple. True. But that's not sufficient. If someone comes to the desk where you work and picks up your pen and writes down a phone number, that's not trespass. |
|
|
|
... fired for whistleblowing on money laundering, ... showed up late.
Maybe he was really fired for being a slacker. |
|
|
|
What is the key difference? Lack of physical presence. From the point of view of the processor, I am no more physically present than a hacker. A processor simply runs whatever instructions are presented to it, regardless of where it comes from. Yes. I don't see your point. That physical presence is not relevant to the computer. I no more have to be local to the processor to use it legitimately than does the hacker, to use it illicitly. I understand your point (that physical presence is not relevant to computers, therefor hacking is not trespassing since you need to be physically present to trespass), which is essentially the same as mine (that physical presence is not relevant to computers, therefor hacking is trespassing since you do not need to be physically present to trespass), but the fact remains that the hacker is using your property without your permission, which is functionally identical to trespassing. It's not that physical presence is relevant to computers or not. Only that it is relevant to literal trespassing. If you're going to link the two, you'll need to use a qualifier like "virtual" or "effectively". Legally, it's not even close (though politicians could choose to make it so of course) |
|
|
|
Hmmm.
Both Jed and Satoshi just leave this genius idea to "work on another project"?
I wonder what could be motivating enough after creating bitcoin...maybe a world changing project?
Bitcoin 2.0. With rounded edges and shading. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
